Knowing what we know today, Did Federer overachieve? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Knowing what we know today, Did Federer overachieve?

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:05 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.

Sofonda Cox
06-05-2011, 09:07 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Discuss.

They all did/are?! Arn't they? Fed has underachieved. Murray on the other hand has overachieved, he has zero weapons.

Mungo
06-05-2011, 09:08 PM
Nope, he simply achieved most of his Slams in a weak era. There's no way he would have won 16 Slams being the same age as Nadal and Djokovic.

juan27
06-05-2011, 09:09 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Discuss.

peak federer hasn`t any problem to defeat murray or nole, if he can own this two with 30 years old , in his prime destroy them, don`t exist very difference between safin/hewitt to murray/nole.

with nadal in his peak form in hc and grass, roger shuold be won very more matches

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:09 PM
They all did/are?! Arn't they? Fed has underachieved. Murray on the other hand has overachieved, he has zero weapons.

Well. I mean for a while Novak and Murray were not a factor (too young). I mean when you have Roddick reaching multiple grand slam finals, you know the field is weak. I don't like giving Rafa credit for anything. But you got to give him the fact that he beats more than just Roddicks of this world to win some of these slams.

Li Ching Yuen
06-05-2011, 09:09 PM
Federer has lost plenty of grand slams that were seemingly within his grasp. So if you want to make a case then maybe call him an underachiever in that respect.

River
06-05-2011, 09:09 PM
Of all the...

I may not be a Federer fan, but you must be downright batshit crazy to think Roger f'ing Federer OVERachieved.

Considering his career AND his talent, he's pretty much on the mark. Untouchable on any surface except clay. You can't get any better than that.

Zagor
06-05-2011, 09:10 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.

Sorry but that tells me more about you than you might have wanted.

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:10 PM
peak federer hasn`t any problem to defeat murray or nole, if he can own this two with 30 years old , in his prime destroy them, don`t exist very difference between safin/hewitt to murray/nole.

with nadal in his peak form in hc and grass, roger shuold be won very more matches

I got to admit. it is sort of a secret for me when the peak Federer stopped peaking :) I mean he played better than ever against Rafa today. So I don't know about the peak thing. He beat Novak but just. He has been dominated by Novak on hard courts recently though.

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:12 PM
Sorry but that tells me more about you than you might have wanted.

Well. It's tough being his fan for at least today considering that he got in the way of the match if the century no? :devil: I like Roger still. But when he is not in a final against Rafa.

Fedex
06-05-2011, 09:13 PM
I guess you can say a guy that owns most of the records in the books "overachieved", but I'd say the talent matches the accomplishments. There have been many similarly talented players that never came close to doing what he's done.

Apophis
06-05-2011, 09:13 PM
Federer and inconsistent in the same sentence?

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Federer and inconsistent in the same sentence?

Inconsistent level of play throughout his matches not his results. Again. People are misunderstanding me. I am not saying he is not talented. I think for his talent, he may have underachieved. But because he is not a consistent player during matches (has ups and downs too many times), he may have won more titles than he should have.

ballbasher101
06-05-2011, 09:19 PM
Interesting how one player can destroy a legacy. Had Nadal come on the scene earlier there is no doubt that Federer would have fewer slams. Borg ran away when he started losing to Johnny Mac in order to protect his legacy. Federer is stubborn however and will keep getting destroyed by Nadal. Nadal will surpass him as GOAT without a doubt. For all the talent Federer has been found wanting when push comes to shove. Great champions have never wilted as much as Federer does against Nadal. The 2008 French open Final was humiliating. Hewitt got bageled in a US open final but he gave it his all in that match even though he is not the most talented of players. You don't get that with Federer. Since the beginning the Swiss has struggled against Nadal. In his prime Federer either lost or was pushed to the limit by Nadal. Federer is lucky that Nadal is five years younger otherwise he would have 7 majors maximum.

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:25 PM
I like to compare Roger to Barca. Both play beautiful. So has Barca underachieved or Federer overachieved? You see. Every coin has two faces.

JediFed
06-05-2011, 09:31 PM
Interesting how one player can destroy a legacy.


What legacy? 5 finals at RG? Let's see. Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander and Federer.

Are people going to say that Nadal is the 5th best ever on hardcourts? No. He's not even the best of his generation.

I'm really not sure why people say he's going to win every slam from here on out.


Had Nadal come on the scene earlier there is no doubt that Federer would have fewer slams.


Quite the opposite. If Federer and Nadal were the same age, Fed would have destroyed him. This is competitive because Nadal is 5 years younger than him. Same with Borg McEnroe, except your man is McEnroe.


Federer is stubborn however and will keep getting destroyed by Nadal.


Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has made 4 slam finals and lost to the same man. Not even Vilas vs Borg. So whatever the legacy, it's a tribute to his consistancy that the only clay rival that Nadal has ever had is Roger Federer, and has had him since 2005, which is 6! years.


Nadal will surpass him as GOAT without a doubt.


Doubtful. He's not the best on hardcourt on his generation, and Roger still took a set, and through 3 had won more points than Rafa. On clay.


For all the talent Federer has been found wanting when push comes to shove.


In losing to someone who's in his prime on his best surface? Doubtful. The only one here who had anything to lose is Nadal.


You don't get that with Federer.


Which is why Federer had more points over 3 sets? I'm not seeing you.

xdrewitdajx
06-05-2011, 09:33 PM
he didn't overachieve, he didn't underachieve. he achieved.

thrust
06-05-2011, 09:36 PM
Inconsistent level of play throughout his matches not his results. Again. People are misunderstanding me. I am not saying he is not talented. I think for his talent, he may have underachieved. But because he is not a consistent player during matches (has ups and downs too many times), he may have won more titles than he should have.

Roger reached his peak about 5 years ago, Rafa- 2years ago, Nole- this year. Until Rafa reached his near peak, Roger's competition was weak. He was more talented and mentally much tougher than: Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, etc.. Rafa was mentally tougher than Roger a few years ago and as physically talented. Roger is an all-time great player, but not the GOAT. It is not realistic to be considered the GOAT, whe you have such a dismal record against a contemporary opponent.

Commander Data
06-05-2011, 09:37 PM
he did underachieve, should have won Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 as well as US Open 2009.

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:40 PM
Roger reached his peak about 5 years ago, Rafa- 2years ago, Nole- this year. Until Rafa reached his near peak, Roger's competition was weak. He was more talented and mentally much tougher than: Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, etc.. Rafa was mentally tougher than Roger a few years ago and as physically talented. Roger is an all-time great player, but not the GOAT. It is not realistic to be considered the GOAT, whe you have such a dismal record against a contemporary opponent.

Come on. Even at his peak, Rafa was beating him. A 17 year old Rafa routined Roger on hard courts. He almost beat him the next year in Miami. He beat him at his pick in Wimbledon and pushed him to 4 and 5 sets the other two times. I am beginning to really question Roger's record now. Nadal will never be my #1. Ever! However, Rogers dismal record against Rafa raises big questions about his mental fortitude.

bobbynorwich
06-05-2011, 09:42 PM
Well, Fed does not have a good record (6-25) against Nadal, but Nadal has been on the scene for 7 years or when Fed has 22, so they have substantial career overlap.
Source: http://newsstream.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/roger-federer-and-the-quest-to-be-the-best/

Raiden
06-05-2011, 09:43 PM
Come on. Even at his peak, Rafa was beating him. A 17 year old Rafa routined Roger on hard courts. He almost beat him the next year in Miami. He beat him at his pick in Wimbledon and pushed him to 4 and 5 sets the other two times. I am beginning to really question Roger's record now. Nadal will never be my #1. Ever! However, Rogers dismal record against Rafa raises big questions about his mental fortitude......against just one man. :shrug:

ballbasher101
06-05-2011, 09:43 PM
What legacy? 5 finals at RG? Let's see. Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander and Federer.

Are people going to say that Nadal is the 5th best ever on hardcourts? No. He's not even the best of his generation.

I'm really not sure why people say he's going to win every slam from here on out.



Quite the opposite. If Federer and Nadal were the same age, Fed would have destroyed him. This is competitive because Nadal is 5 years younger than him. Same with Borg McEnroe, except your man is McEnroe.



Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has made 4 slam finals and lost to the same man. Not even Vilas vs Borg. So whatever the legacy, it's a tribute to his consistancy that the only clay rival that Nadal has ever had is Roger Federer, and has had him since 2005, which is 6! years.



Doubtful. He's not the best on hardcourt on his generation, and Roger still took a set, and through 3 had won more points than Rafa. On clay.



In losing to someone who's in his prime on his best surface? Doubtful. The only one here who had anything to lose is Nadal.



Which is why Federer had more points over 3 sets? I'm not seeing you.


It is simple, if Nadal wins more majors than Federer he will be considered the best ever. Do I like Nadal? No, The figures don't lie. He is catching Federer quickly in the majors count. He will most likely be 5 behind Federer after Wimbledon. The French open is a lock year after year for him so Federer should be worried.

xdrewitdajx
06-05-2011, 09:44 PM
he did underachieve, should have won Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 as well as US Open 2009.

"should have"? what does that even mean?
....he should have lost US Open 2007 and Wimbledon 2009. It all works out

Pirao666
06-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Holy sh*t :facepalm:

JediFed
06-05-2011, 09:45 PM
He was more talented and mentally much tougher than: Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin


True, but lets look at that the other way. Roddick has 12 GS Semifinals.

How many players in any era have that many? Very few. How many players have nearly 8 years consecutive top ten? Very few.

Same with Hewitt. He was number 1 for a year. How many players have done that? Not many. And Safin is the last person other than Rafa or Nadal to be in a final that had neither one of them in it. In 2005.

That's 6! years we've had for the field to catch up and they haven't. That Roger is still right up there says quite a bit about Nadal's generation. And about Federer.

Commander Data
06-05-2011, 09:46 PM
"should have"? what does that even mean?
....he should have lost US Open 2007 and Wimbledon 2009. It all works out

I don't know, ask the thread starter.

JediFed
06-05-2011, 09:47 PM
He will most likely be 5 behind Federer after Wimbledon.


So you're saying he's got Wimbly in the bag? :)


The French open is a lock year after year for him so Federer should be worried.


Even assuming he wins the next three RG + WIM that will make him 28 when he catches Roger. What happens if Isner bounces Rafa in round 1?

I think this is the last time we'll see either in a RG final.

Garson007
06-05-2011, 09:47 PM
It is Nadal who overachieved, by having Federer on the other side of the court. It was the one certainty he could count on 90% of the time, if he could make it that far himself - to a GS final.

The underachiever in all this is Djokovic.

xdrewitdajx
06-05-2011, 09:48 PM
ok.....thread starter, what did Commander Data mean when he said Federer should have won those finals?

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:50 PM
It is Nadal who overachieved, by having Federer on the other side of the court. It was the one certainty he could count on 90% of the time, if he could make it that far himself - to a GS final.

The underachiever in all this is Djokovic.

I actually agree with this too :)

SetSampras
06-05-2011, 09:50 PM
Overachieved? Absolutely the amount of slams he amassed from 2003-2007 and 2009 was just sickening. If that isn't overachieving I dunno what is.

Commander Data
06-05-2011, 09:51 PM
ok.....thread starter, what did Commander Data mean when he said Federer should have won those finals?

:lol: I mean isn't that the meaning of overachieve? That you got more then you actually should? I think it is okay to question that concept but then question the whole thread, so yeah, let him explain what he means.

MaxPower
06-05-2011, 09:51 PM
Sorry OP but I've been dying to use this one

5hfYJsQAhl0

dombrfc
06-05-2011, 09:52 PM
Overachieved? Absolutely the amount of slams he amassed from 2003-2007 and 2009 was just sickening. If that isn't overachieving I dunno what is.

lol you really have no clue.

read label
06-05-2011, 09:53 PM
Roger reached his peak about 5 years ago, Rafa- 2years ago, Nole- this year. Until Rafa reached his near peak, Roger's competition was weak. He was more talented and mentally much tougher than: Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, etc.. Rafa was mentally tougher than Roger a few years ago and as physically talented. Roger is an all-time great player, but not the GOAT. It is not realistic to be considered the GOAT, whe you have such a dismal record against a contemporary opponent.

He didn't overachieve, but the others listed here should have achieve more, reasons, injury partying (marat) stop them achieving, this gave Federer more easy time.
Once Rafa came along, everything begin to change.
How much more does Federer think can improve, how much more fast can he became? Federer time is over, but he doesn't want to let go.
Rafa and Nole still have many years, its only time Rafa should,will,
achieve more.

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 09:54 PM
**overachieving = winning more than you should have ***

Knowing that the quality of opponents Roger faced before the emergence of guys like Nadal and Djokovic leaves a whole lot to be desired, and given the fact that Roger keeps losing to Rafa on all surfaces, I have to say... yes. Roger never faced players as consistent as Nadal and Djokovic in his peak. Roddick was a one dimensional clown. Safin was a ticking time bomb on the court. Hewitt was what he was.

Again. I am not questioning Roger's talent. I am just saying the way he plays reminds me of Barca. Brilliant. Out of this world at times. But not consistent enough during matches to beat guys like Nadal or Djokovic of today on a consistent basis. Roger is playing better than his peak on clay and still can't do it.

I have often said nobody can compete with Roger's best. But Roger does not play his best 3 sets against Nadal or Djokovic that often. He still can beat Nole but Nadal? Nope

SetSampras
06-05-2011, 09:55 PM
lol you really have no clue.

Would Fed have NEARLY as many slams if Nadal was actually more of his contemporary?

rafa_maniac
06-05-2011, 09:57 PM
Like all great players there were Slams he could easily have won but got away from him (Oz/US 09, Wimby 08) and others he could easily have lost that he won (Wimby 07/09, French 09). It all evens out in the end.

nastoff
06-05-2011, 10:05 PM
Nadal had to challenge Federer for the top after years and years of being the no 2 player, while Federer had to challenge people like Hewitt, Roddick and Safin whose consistency at the top level would only last from a few months to a couple of years at the most - and they were nowhere near as consistent as Federer was. So Federer rise to the top was so prevalent not only because he was the best player of his generation by far but also because there wasn't anybody consistent enough to challenge him except for Nadal on clay.
But If, say, Sampras was 5 years younger Federer would have had a difficult time dominating the way he did. But to suggest that he overachieved is a very bold statement. When he was at his peak it wasn't possible to see those frailties in the mental aspect of his game because he wasn't challenged enough. But he neither underachieved: his relative failure to capture titles on clay was only due to the fact that there was somebody on clay much better than him...Nadal was beating him on clay as a teenager..when Federer was a monster on all other surfaces and at the very peak of his game and was expected to win.

So it's all relative, yes, perhaps Nadal didn't develop his game on other surfaces early enough to challenge Federer when he was at his absolute best...on the other hand Federer hardly faced what Nadal had to face in order to make it to the top, allegendly the best player of all time. Depends on the way you see it.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-05-2011, 10:09 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.

Murray and Nole probably wouldn't have made much difference. They're slightly stronger than the previous generation but that is just the evolution of the game.

Nadal is a different story.

Raiden
06-05-2011, 10:23 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era? When exactly did Fed lose to those two kids in a slam? And no, once or twice doesn't count.

I think you are deliberately mixing things up in order to make your case which otherwise doesn't have a leg to stand on. The fact is there is no need to add other players to Nadal as being players that Fed has a special difficulty with at the major occasions. He had and still has only one "cryptonite" and that is Nadal and Nadal ONLY.

vn01
06-05-2011, 10:31 PM
federer deserves all his GS titles and achievements. he isn't overachieved. yes, until 2008 rafa was not the player he is now, but after 2008 fed isn't the player he used to be. ;)

BigJohn
06-05-2011, 10:33 PM
he didn't overachieve, he didn't underachieve. he achieved.

Being the 2nd best clay courter all these years behind one of the greatest clay courter of all time... I would also say that he achieved.

luie
06-05-2011, 10:45 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.
Yes roger overachieved but only on clay,,imo He hasn't the clay game to make 5 RG Finals 2/3 @ most. So its more of a reflection of the weak clay era that he achieved so much,. There are simply no elite clay courter around,,nadull played a poor FO but still won because Novak couldn't get past a 30 year old fed.

JediFed
06-05-2011, 10:45 PM
Well lets play a game. What if Roger had gotten hit by a bus on the way to the 2003 Wimbly?

1. Roddick def Philippoussis at 2003 Wimbledon.
2. Marat Safin def David Nalbandian at 2004 Australian Open
3. Roddick def Hewitt at 2004 Wimbledon
4. Hewitt def Henman at 2004 US Open
5. Roddick def Hewitt at 2005 Wimbledon
6. Hewitt def Agassi at 2005 US Open
7. Baghdatis def Davydenko at 2006 Australian Open * New era.
8. Roddick def Davydenko at 2006 Wimbledon
9. Roddick def Gonzalez at 2007 Australian Open
10. Roddick def Haas at 2009 Wimbledon.

So 9 of Roger's 16 slams would go to his generation still. You can really see that the 2007 Australian was the swan song of his generation. That's when their average age was 27. Hewitt would have 4 slams, Roddick would have 7 slams. Safin 3. Nalbandian, still 0.

JediFed
06-05-2011, 10:49 PM
So its more of a reflection of the weak clay era that he achieved so much,. There are simply no elite clay courter around,,nadull played a poor FO but still won because Novak couldn't get past a 30 year old fed.


Weak clay era my ass. Only two clay finals had players who were of comparable quality. Borg v Lendl and Lendl vs Wilander. 10 and 11.

You might also put Borg v Vilas too, depending on where you gage Vilas. So the era of Borg and Wilander was very strong. But what has there been since?

Clowns, giant clowns.

luie
06-05-2011, 10:58 PM
Weak clay era my ass. Only two clay finals had players who were of comparable quality. Borg v Lendl and Lendl vs Wilander. 10 and 11.

You might also put Borg v Vilas too, depending on where you gage Vilas. So the era of Borg and Wilander was very strong. But what has there been since?

Clowns, giant clowns.
Borg/lendl/wilanders rival & clay finals etc @ RG was around 24-26 years.
If a 29 year old goes through the tourny until the final for the lost of 1 set shows the "younger" players are poor.
To get to RG finals/titles @ 29/30 years is rear.. The young players are not stepping up on the surface so the "older players are taking advantage,,like fed this year & Melzer from feds generation last year.

renatus
06-05-2011, 11:00 PM
So "decaying" Federer bets on his peak Nole and u still say he overachieved?

SheepleBuster
06-05-2011, 11:18 PM
So "decaying" Federer bets on his peak Nole and u still say he overachieved?

Yes. He is a mental midget. He is like Gasquet plus plus. In fact, he may have been another Gasquet had he not won his slam early on and had Roddick to gift him slam after slam. :devil:

Surcouf
06-05-2011, 11:25 PM
You can hardly say that Federer would have been beaten by Djokovic if he was the same age because he just knocked out the best prime Djokovic when he is nearly 30. Federer used to own Djokovic in his prime and I think that this match proove that when he is playing his best he is better than Djokovic.

It's hard to say he overachieved or underachieved. By one side the man who is beating him, Nadal, was injured in 2009 and allowed Federer to take more slams than he maybe would have otherwise. But Federer took time to reach his peak and if he matured quicked like everyonelse he could have won more slams earlier.

ApproachShot
06-05-2011, 11:31 PM
Would Fed have NEARLY as many slams if Nadal was actually more of his contemporary?

Difficult one to say. Perhaps he would actually have more. Pit a 23 year old Federer against a 23 year old Nadal on Wimbledon grass for instance or in the final of an Australian Open. The respective outcomes that were seen in WIM 2008 and AO 2009 may have turned out different.

All this talk is hypothetical though. But given the fact that Federer has done better in more Grand Slam tournaments in which both of them participated, it's difficult to say. Of course that chapter is not yet closed. Something tells me this rivalry is not quite over yet.

heya
06-06-2011, 01:32 AM
roddick ate fed shit since he heard the espn fanboys chewing on federina's ballet tutu in 2001, then roddick and idiotic espn commentators, gilbert, agassi, sampras and 'loved ones' gave interviews in a biography to promote his 'sportiness', his hero brother, darling federer, humiliating failures, privileged life, umbilical cord-strangling birth experience, usa stardom, and luck in tennis. fed was in a 'gem biography' in which a 'weakened' fed was praised profusely for miraculously winning a thailand event after roddick injured his screwed body in 3 davis cup shit matches, and of course, fed's mom cried buckets of love tears.

heya
06-06-2011, 01:40 AM
nadal's federina butt-kissing and injury prone body helped federer. federer isn't renowned for respecting anyone.

moon language
06-06-2011, 02:06 AM
roddick ate fed shit since he heard the espn fanboys chewing on federina's ballet tutu in 2001, then roddick and idiotic espn commentators, gilbert, agassi, sampras and 'loved ones' gave interviews in a biography to promote his 'sportiness', his hero brother, darling federer, humiliating failures, privileged life, umbilical cord-strangling birth experience, usa stardom, and luck in tennis. fed was in a 'gem biography' in which a 'weakened' fed was praised profusely for miraculously winning a thailand event after roddick injured his screwed body in 3 davis cup shit matches, and of course, fed's mom cried buckets of love tears.

:lol:

heya
06-06-2011, 02:18 AM
Inconsistent level of play throughout his matches not his results. Again. People are misunderstanding me. I am not saying he is not talented. I think for his talent, he may have underachieved. But because he is not a consistent player during matches (has ups and downs too many times), he may have won more titles than he should have.
without clown opponents' inconsistency, fed would not have slams on grass, and crybaby tears and his belligerent booing fanboys at roland garros.

Smoke944
06-06-2011, 02:18 AM
roddick ate fed shit since he heard the espn fanboys chewing on federina's ballet tutu in 2001, then roddick and idiotic espn commentators, gilbert, agassi, sampras and 'loved ones' gave interviews in a biography to promote his 'sportiness', his hero brother, darling federer, humiliating failures, privileged life, umbilical cord-strangling birth experience, usa stardom, and luck in tennis. fed was in a 'gem biography' in which a 'weakened' fed was praised profusely for miraculously winning a thailand event after roddick injured his screwed body in 3 davis cup shit matches, and of course, fed's mom cried buckets of love tears.

this one's a classic

TennisLurker
06-06-2011, 02:21 AM
this one's a classic

federina's ballet tutu :worship:

hipolymer
06-06-2011, 02:51 AM
It is simple, if Nadal wins more majors than Federer he will be considered the best ever. Do I like Nadal? No, The figures don't lie. He is catching Federer quickly in the majors count. He will most likely be 5 behind Federer after Wimbledon. The French open is a lock year after year for him so Federer should be worried.

Nadal will not get 6 majors in the upcoming years. He has about 2 years left of play before he really starts to decline, although his decline has already started.

bluefork
06-06-2011, 02:56 AM
SheepleBuster, you need to turn off your computer, go to sleep, and see how you feel in the morning. If you're brain is still not functioning properly by tomorrow afternoon, you may want to check yourself into the hospital.

luie
06-06-2011, 03:00 AM
Nadal will not get 6 majors in the upcoming years. He has about 2 years left of play before he really starts to decline, although his decline has already started.
He could get it because apart from old man fed there is little resistance,,,this era sent an old man to do a job for the younger players in their prime,,they continue to hide behind "the name federer"..Del-po,useless on clay,,ABsolute prime Novak can't beat the old man,,,Murray can't win a set despite a strong 2 hbh & creating 18 bp chances...Monfills on home soil gets straight setted by fed even though fed was choking in the 3rd but couldn't capitilize.
People keep harping on the fed as he is the reason for the pathetic state of affairs where a defensive moonballer is picking up slams,,,fed did his bit in his prime,,its time for the so-called young guns to do their part or are they just HC players.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2011, 03:02 AM
He could get it because apart from old man fed there is little resistance,,,this era sent an old man to do a job for the younger players in their prime,,they continue to hide behind "the name federer"..Del-po,useless on clay,,ABsolute prime Novak can't beat the old man,,,Murray can't win a set despite a strong 2 hbh & creating 18 bp chances...Monfills on home soil gets straight setted by fed even though fed was choking in the 3rd but couldn't capitilize.
People keep harping on the fed as he is the reason for the pathetic state of affairs where a defensive moonballer is picking up slams,,,fed did his bit in his prime,,its time for the so-called young guns to do their part or are they just HC players.

Don't make excuse for Roger. Even Uncle Tony admits that the best player in khistory is a mental midget to his son from his brother.

luie
06-06-2011, 03:43 AM
Don't make excuse for Roger. Even Uncle Tony admits that the best player in khistory is a mental midget to his son from his brother.
I'am not stating something we didn't already know,,fed is a choker,,however its nadull who is able to best capitalize on it ,,because he is able to extend fed.. Fed has been a talented choker since he stated playing tennis,,nothing new. He choked away match points against safin @ AO 05,choked against del-potro,,,choked against monfill/baggy etc recently,,That why fed for an all-time great has a poor 5 set or deciding set record when compared to the likes of borg/sampras/nadull... Fed gets nervous ala lendl. Fed tried to choke against monfills/novak but they coouldn't capitalize. When you support a player you take both their streghts & weakness.Its nothing new.

heya
06-06-2011, 04:00 AM
mediocre players were good enough to hammer federererer. even roddick and the greatest players admit this.

Mjau!
06-06-2011, 04:24 AM
If anything he underachieved as he should have won AO 09 and USO 09 to complete the CYGS!

juan27
06-06-2011, 04:33 AM
Overachieved? Absolutely the amount of slams he amassed from 2003-2007 and 2009 was just sickening. If that isn't overachieving I dunno what is.

please man stop to say bullshits!!!

you don`t remember when sampras won wimbledon without facing a top-30 to reach the final even won wimbledon without facing a top-10 in all tournament!!!!!!!! what class of competition is that????

or you don`t remember the mugs who defeat sampras in clay , guys like delgado or galo blanco!!!

and other important thing sampras too won players like martin or pioline even moya good player but nothing more.

agassi no can you compare with nadal, was very irregular and disappeared more than 1 year under top-100!!! if roger has agassi and no nadal, he destroy andre.

tests
06-06-2011, 04:38 AM
please man stop to say bullshits!!!

you don`t remember when sampras won wimbledon without facing a top-30 to reach the final even won wimbledon without facing a top-10 in all tournament!!!!!!!! what class of competition is that????

or you don`t remember the mugs who defeat sampras in clay , guys like delgado or galo blanco!!!

and other important thing sampras too won players like martin or pioline even moya good player but nothing more.

agassi no can you compare with nadal, was very irregular and disappeared more than 1 year under top-100!!! if roger has agassi and no nadal, he destroy andre.

if nadal was facing sampras, he would DESTROY sampras on all surfaces (todays surfaces) except the USO.

Absolutely destroy him. Too bad, sampras would never make RG finals... so his head to head would be favorable

FedererXPress
06-06-2011, 06:42 AM
Reading these posts I'm seriously starting to believe that some of you are retarded lol. First of all, saying that Roger wouldn't have won as many slams in the Rafa/Novak era is ridiculous simply because he is playing in their era. I have much respect for Djokovic, but Federer has marched through Novak on his way to at least 3 of his U.S. Open titles that I can recall as well as to get to this latest French Open final. Does he have problems beating Rafa? Sure he does. You know why? Rafa is a friggin beast people! You guys act like Roger came out and totally wet the bed today, but for the most part he played quality tennis. Rafa's defense was just incredible. No matter what Fed threw at him he was ready and all I can do is tip my hat to the guy. Roger Federer is still making the semis and finals of just about every tourney he plays in. Some of you armchair tennis pros want to put him out to pasture but the legend marches on :)

shiaben
06-06-2011, 06:57 AM
He has nothing to be ashamed of. He wasn't suppose to defeat a prime Djokovic but did it at this level. You've done a great job Fed. Now win Wimbledon to make my grand slam predictions 3/3.

heya
06-06-2011, 07:36 AM
he couldn't get the tiebreaks easily and stumbled around meekly. how was he playing well to compete with a bitter federina?:confused:

Arkulari
06-06-2011, 07:59 AM
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/9451/884279-time_to_stop_posting_super.jpg

Topspindoctor
06-06-2011, 08:02 AM
Olderer got lucky playing clowns like Phillipussy, Hewitt and Rodmug in GS finals. If Nadal had been born earlier he would not even be in GOAT discussion right now. 2003-2007 = era full of players with no balls bending down for the Swiss.

manadrainer
06-06-2011, 08:20 AM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.
Discuss.

Jump on the Nadal bandwagon if you wish.

Where was Rafa when Roger won 7/8 HC finals between 2004-2007?

Yesterday Roger played great tennis, unfortunately on this surface Rafa's defense is too strong, you can't outhit him for 4 sets.

holagirl56
06-06-2011, 08:23 AM
omg, I can't with this anymore. I usually don't frequent MTF because of the sheer idiocy of posts, but this really takes the cake.

Look, I don't know if you just started watching tennis or what, but go back to Federer's peak years (hint: these aren't it). In 2004-2005 the guy won 24 straight finals. 2006, he had one of the best seasons ever. Could you argue that's the result of a weak era? Sure, but you could also argue that the world is flat, doesn't mean you're right.

Around 2007 and 2008, he really lost that famous consistency and these past few years he hasn't been at his best. YET, he's still able to beat Novak Djokovic, who, by the way had one of the most incredible streaks yet and tested Nadal in the RG final at 29. Are you serious with your bullshit?

The rumors of Federer's demise and the comparison of him and Nadal have always been exaggerated due to the media's penchant for sensationalist coverage, a trait that you seem to have picked up, drama queen.

And if all you have to do is harp on constantly about how Federer used to be your favorite player but he's terrible across posts, threads, whatever, that's just sad. Why are you so obsessed with him if you don't care?

A_Skywalker
06-06-2011, 08:28 AM
Jump on the Nadal bandwagon if you wish.

Where was Rafa when Roger won 7/8 HC finals between 2004-2007?

Yesterday Roger played great tennis, unfortunately on this surface Rafa's defense is too strong, you can't outhit him for 4 sets.

Rafa was a baby back then, he played great in RG, but was nowhere near his best on other surfaces.

Jimnik
06-06-2011, 08:29 AM
he didn't overachieve, he didn't underachieve. he achieved.
So simple yet so true.

nastoff
06-06-2011, 08:32 AM
Put Federer in the insanely competitive tennis field of the 1980's I doubt he would have won half the grand slams he's won so far today. Put him in the relatively weak era of clowns of the early 00's and he becomes the GOAT. It's all relative, what if there was no Nadal in the scene at all? Fed would have won another 5-6 slams.
It's good that Fed came in the scene otherwise the sport of tennis in itself would have been in a steady decline with all the clowns of the late era minus Rafa...tennis would have suffered what basketball suffered after the departure of MJ and Magic and Bird...trying to find inspiration from a weak era and hyping up clowns like Lebron James as successors.

Therefore Roger Federer has single-handedly saved tennis from becoming irrelevant...never mind over-achieving or under-achieving.
The field was so uninnspiring at the time prior to Roger's arrival that people were more interested in Kournikova's buttocks. At least now we have a few rivalries to entertain ourselves with.

Young 8
06-06-2011, 08:54 AM
Put Federer in the insanely competitive tennis field of the 1980's I doubt he would have won half the grand slams he's won so far today.

LOL

I would love to see some of the 70'/80' Champions playing now and getting destroyed in today's tennis

buzz
06-06-2011, 09:17 AM
Federer lucky Nadal wasn't around erlier? No way!
When Federer first seemed to win the french he got stopped by Nadal, when Federer last seemed to win the French he got stopped by Nadal. In Respect to the French Federer is extremely unlucky their peaks exactly coincide. Especially because Nadal is apart from a very very good clay courter also a bad matchup to federer. If nadal stops reaching FO finals by the age of 28(wich is pretty reasonably considering he won his first when he was 18) it would have been better for Federer if they were born in the same year because then Federer could maybe snatch a few more when he was 29 30 apart from the year he would win when Nadal would be be injured(witch is inevitable to happen to Nadal)

In other slams Federer has been a top contender for about 8 years now, he won 15 slams there (-1FO) up until now Nadal only won 2 hardcourt/grass slams when he didn't beat Federer along the way. I don't think Nadal is going to win a ton more hard/grass slams without beating Federer in the next few years. And apart from that Federer would probably win his share of Hard/grass matches vs Nadal, because its pretty even between them in their head to head on those courts. Federer is a top contender of almost every hard/grass slam for 8 years now and Nadal will never come close to that, so Federer would win the same slams but in another year if Nadal was the same age I guess.

So how can you say Federer is lucky Nadal is 5 years younger than him? Unlucky more like Nadal won 10slams, 7 he took from Federer.

buzz
06-06-2011, 09:22 AM
Furthermore Federer has beat everyone except Nadal in slams, and that is not because he over achieved he is just technically better than them all and beats them with better tennis.

Vamos_Me_Rafa
06-06-2011, 09:49 AM
Yes, he definitely over achieved. He's a subpar player at best.

leng jai
06-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Anyone who wins 16 slams overachieves

manadrainer
06-06-2011, 10:11 AM
Rafa was a baby back then, he played great in RG, but was nowhere near his best on other surfaces.

Don't get me wrong... I respect Rafa's achievements, but it just makes me laugh when people try to compare players who have 5 years age difference between them or, even worse, when they start talking about strong/weak eras.

Fed's peak was 2004-2007, in that period he has won 11 slams and was number one for 237 weeks. Period.

Rafa's peak is arguably 2008-2011 (possibly what? 2012? 2013?) and he has achieved still less then Federer. Let's wait till the end of their careers, but I don't buy the weak/strong era debate because it can be easily turned around: who were Nadal's rivals? Murray "mr. slamless", Djokovic "pre-prime" and Federer "post-prime"? Come on...

Nadal is a great champion, a mental giant and possibly the strongest defender ever. He is still saying Roger is better than him. Unfortunately his fans are not willing to accept this truth.

wee
06-06-2011, 10:17 AM
Overachieved? i dont think so ,

Aenea
06-06-2011, 10:21 AM
who were Nadal's rivals? Murray "mr. slamless", Djokovic "pre-prime" and Federer "post-prime"? Come on...

who were Roger's rivals at the time he ruled the circuit?

MacTheKnife
06-06-2011, 01:23 PM
He probably just overachieved in this French Open. He got to the final and only dropped one set in six matches. That set being against Djok. Frankly I never thought he'd get that far. Then loses to Nadal in the final. I just don't find that nearly as shocking, in fact, one could say it was the expected result.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 01:36 PM
Furthermore Federer has beat everyone except Nadal in slams, and that is not because he over achieved he is just technically better than them all and beats them with better tennis.

He's beaten Nadal in 2 Wimbledon finals. Jeez memories are short here.

Matt01
06-06-2011, 01:41 PM
He won most of his Slams in a mug era but that doesn't necessarily mean that he overachieved.

Matt01
06-06-2011, 01:42 PM
No Graf did.


For once you are right.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 01:43 PM
Incidentally, this is one of the most idiotic trolling threads in MTF history. I can't be arsed to read through it.

Zagor
06-06-2011, 02:00 PM
he didn't overachieve, he didn't underachieve. he achieved.

Well said,no matter how much people love to dump on Fed's achievements,IMO you could put him in any era(even wood racquet one)and he'd still win 10+ slams,the guy's one of the most gifted players of all time.

luie
06-06-2011, 02:05 PM
who were Roger's rivals at the time he ruled the circuit?
Well considering 60% of nadull SLAMS came @ 1 venue who were his rivals,,,,I don't think highly of them if they can allow the oldest finalist in the open ERA @ RG to be in the finals,,,seems piss-poor clay competition to me......Well if a sub-par nadull can comfortably win on clay,,what does that say about the competition????:angel:

Greatness
06-06-2011, 02:28 PM
It's not his fault his competition couldn't rise to his level and stop him.
However, I do agree that there's no way he would be winning that many slams if he had to deal with Nadal/Djokovic playing
their best when Federer's run began.

luie
06-06-2011, 02:34 PM
It's not his fault his competition couldn't rise to his level and stop him.
However, I do agree that there's no way he would be winning that many slams if he had to deal with Nadal/Djokovic playing
their best when Federer's run began.
Debateable as nadull's Run started when fed was 26 years & Novak run when fed turned 29 years.;)

Snowwy
06-06-2011, 02:47 PM
Federer had an incredible run and anyone who thinks he is done is deluding themselves. Making the finals of a Grand Slam on your worst surface at the age of 30 is a huge accomplishment, knowing what we know today, one could argue that he could have won more titles at RG if he played like this before Nadal arrived at RG.

bokehlicious
06-06-2011, 02:57 PM
Yes he obviously overachieved, my 115 year old grandma still shanks less easy shots than the arrogant pricky swiss asshole.

star
06-06-2011, 03:04 PM
Debateable as nadull's Run started when fed was 26 years & Novak run when fed turned 29 years.;)

How do you reckon that Nadal's "Run" started when Fed was 26 years old?

Nadal won his first RG in 2005, no? Federer was born in August 1981. By my calculations Federer was 23 and going to turn 24 in a couple of months. He had won his first grand slam only two years previously. It seems to me that 2005 was the heart of Fed's career. People look to the years 2004/5 through 2007 as the height of Federer's dominance.

Federer turned 26 in 2007. By that time, Nadal had won 3 RGs and had threatened Federer at Wimbledon.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 03:12 PM
How do you reckon that Nadal's "Run" started when Fed was 26 years old?

Nadal won his first RG in 2005, no? Federer was born in August 1981. By my calculations Federer was 23 and going to turn 24 in a couple of months. He had won his first grand slam only two years previously. It seems to me that 2005 was the heart of Fed's career. People look to the years 2004/5 through 2007 as the height of Federer's dominance.

Federer turned 26 in 2007. By that time, Nadal had won 3 RGs and had threatened Federer at Wimbledon.

Indeed. Unfortunately Nadaltards trying to diminish Federer's achievements also tend to diminish Nadal's quality as a player in those years.

SheepleBuster
06-06-2011, 03:15 PM
Indeed. Unfortunately Nadaltards trying to diminish Federer's achievements also tend to diminish Nadal's quality as a player in those years.

:rolls:

You are not serious, are you? What is special about being a good runner?

Benny_Maths
06-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Being the only player to win 10+ slams despite having a genuinely bad matchup who is a multiple-slam winner, is the definition of overachieving.:D

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 03:24 PM
He's underachieved by choking away slams to Nadull.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 03:33 PM
hmm well as I said before I have no idea of the logic behind this thread. Lets look at what we know today.

Federer has 23 straight grand slam semi finals. 23 straight! look where nr2 is. 6 of his final losses are against Nadal who is not only 5 years younger but also has a game engineered to defeat him. 4 of the meetings also happens to be on that guys best surface.

If anything reverse it. Knowing what we know today, Did Federer underachieve? He could have been at 20 now just looking at how deep he has gone in many slams and if he had a little more "help". Tsonga took Nadal out in AO 2008. Soderling took Nadal out in RG 2009. Federer capitalized. Del Potro took Nadal out in US Open 2009. Federer failed to capitalize. Imagine if Nadal had been eliminated from more RGs by Soderling, Murray, Djokovic (djoko who after all is 0-5 in slams vs Nadal, get your shit together man!) then Federer would very likely have grabbed 1 or 2 more RGs. He is that good! Just has that one horrible matchup. He needs help to kick Nadal out of tournaments that is what he needs. Only a few very talented players have managed that since 2007 when Federer stopped defeating Nadal himself partly due to age

star
06-06-2011, 03:36 PM
Indeed. Unfortunately Nadaltards trying to diminish Federer's achievements also tend to diminish Nadal's quality as a player in those years.

I'm pretty sure I didn't reply to a Nadaltard. :lol:

:hug: But glad to see you can recognize Nadal's brilliance. Or "quality" at any rate. :p

They are both great players. They differ in playing styles and their ages don't precisely overlap so the comparisons aren't apt.

Players take the field as they find it. Nadal's fate was to begin his career at the time Federer was starting to compile all of his enormous records. Maybe having a champion like Federer looming made Nadal work even harder and become even greater. We don't know and will never know. Just the same as we will never know what might have been had Federer and Nadal been the same age.

It's like trying to compare Nadal and Borg. Yes, both great players, but their careers are so very different and the times in which they played are so different.

Federer had the better GS record and the better record as number one and the better record of matches won and series of matches won. Nadal has some records on his side, but for now, one has to say Federer as the better career and stands higher in the record books than Nadal.

For me, Nadal will always be the greater of the two because he means more to me. I like everything about him better than Federer -- except perhaps the shoulders and the hair. :p These things are matters of taste, and they can't be argued logically. If you prefer Federer, fine. But either way, it would be good to recognize the greatness of each. Depending on the level of antipathy, the success of one of them will be galling to a greater or lesser degree.

nastoff
06-06-2011, 03:45 PM
Nadal is not a horrible matchup for Federer...Nadal on clay is a horrible matchup for Federer because Nadal is beating everybody on clay. It's a horrible matchup for everybody else too. So get your facts right.

The horrible matchup argument is ridiculous and certainly not an excuse for Federer being mentally weaker than Nadal.

nastoff
06-06-2011, 04:02 PM
LOL

I would love to see some of the 70'/80' Champions playing now and getting destroyed in today's tennis

Wouldn't be too sure about that, they would have to adjust their individual talents/qualities to suit the demands of the modern game and also take advantage of the advancements in the science of the sport. You can't just take Borg from the late 70's in a time-warp machine and place him on a modern court. Tennis has changed a lot since then.

Priam
06-06-2011, 04:06 PM
In the end you just play with the tools you are given and against the opponent across the net from you. 16 is 16 no matter how you spin it.

juan27
06-06-2011, 05:28 PM
He won most of his Slams in a mug era but that doesn't necessarily mean that he overachieved.

more mug era is this....

only see the top-10 you know that.

before player like nalbandian,davydenko,roddick,blake,gonzalez,henman n,coria,gronsjean and other more, today monfils,berdych,soderlig,melzer,fish.....

the generation of roger have more slams and archivements than this

.-Federers_Mate-.
06-06-2011, 05:33 PM
He underachieved. Could have won so much more if he had more belief. If he didn't tighten up when the finish lune appeared in sight. If he didn't have the concentration levels of a 16 year old boy. He could have won so much more and those previous heartburning losses in slams and Masters series would be turned into easy wins like they should be considering his god given talent. Illness in 2008 halted his progress...

Sapeod
06-06-2011, 05:41 PM
Like .-F_M-. said above, he underachieved. 16 slams? He could've had a few more. He could've had many more masters titles and smaller titles too. He should be on 800+ match wins by far already and he should've done better around 2004/5.

JediFed
06-10-2011, 09:36 PM
who were Roger's rivals at the time he ruled the circuit?

Some nobodies like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferraro and Nalbandian

BTW, the only people who have at least 12 GS SFs like Roddick does are all multi-slam winners with at least 5 slams. Roddick doesn't because of Federer.

r2473
06-10-2011, 09:45 PM
I like to compare Roger to Barca. Both play beautiful. So has Barca underachieved or Federer overachieved? You see. Every coin has two faces.

Only if you are using a two-headed coin.

guga2120
06-10-2011, 09:54 PM
He won most of his Slams in a mug era

Very true, he was lucky in the middle part of the decade he got to play so many clowns like Roddick, old men, and kiddie versions of future great players.

barbadosan
06-10-2011, 10:05 PM
Very true, he was lucky in the middle part of the decade he got to play so many clowns like Roddick, old men, and kiddie versions of future great players.

do you ever say anything that is not predictable? lol

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-10-2011, 10:20 PM
tell u this

if djokovic 2011 played during 2005 onwards

nadal would have ZERO SLAMS

luie
06-10-2011, 10:29 PM
tell u this

if djokovic 2011 played during 2005 onwards

nadal would have ZERO SLAMS
Agreed,,don't know about 0 slams but significantly less...Novak would have taken away rafas confidence on clay & added some REAL COMPETITION on a depleted clay field 2006 onwards.

MaxPower
06-10-2011, 10:57 PM
tell u this

if djokovic 2011 played during 2005 onwards

nadal would have ZERO SLAMS

never thought about that but interesting concept. Seeing Djokovic today you realize he must be one of the biggest underachievers ever. Afaik he hasn't battled any major injury many of his no slam years

TheBoiledEgg
06-10-2011, 11:04 PM
More like Rafa is lucky that Nole didn't peak till this yr or he'd not have won anything other than RG.

Pirata.
06-10-2011, 11:06 PM
Very true, he was lucky in the middle part of the decade he got to play so many clowns like Roddick, old men, and kiddie versions of future great players.

If Federer played in a mug era from 2003-2007, then what the hell is the current era? Still only the top three guys are challenging for anything, Fedal both have numerous pigeons, there is absolutely no competition on clay other than Fedalovic, grass specialists are slowly dying out. Outside of other top ten guys, most players choke the second they have any sort of opportunity to try and beat the Big Three.

Haelfix
06-10-2011, 11:26 PM
Ask yourselves this. If Federer was 5 years younger than Nadal. Rafa would probably have an extra Wimbledon or two (having been stopped by Fed early in his career), but Rafa is 26, which means Federer is just about to enter his prime at 21 having been a bit of a late bloomer..

So while it is concievable that Rafa might stop him at the FO several years in a row, does anyone really see Djokovic and Murray stopping baby Fed on hards? Especially one that has had time to specifically adapt to their games.

Does anyone see Nadal stopping Fed circa 2003-2004 at Wimbledon? Maybe once, but for how long? And who stops him at RG when Rafa is gone.

Its very conceivable that Federer wins more majors than he currently has and would end up with a winning h2h against Nadal (being the younger player who gets to take advantage of an aging Rafa).

The point is, you can never rewrite history with ifs. And there is very much a selection bias effect, particularly from the old generation to the new (the new generation has an advantage in that they can tailor their games to beat the old ones.. Like Hewitt did to Pete, like Fed did to Hewitt, and like Rafa did to Fed.

r2473
06-10-2011, 11:51 PM
tell u this

if djokovic 2011 played during 2005 onwards

nadal would have ZERO SLAMS

Not even FO 2011?

sexybeast
06-10-2011, 11:57 PM
Federer underachieved on clay because he played against the greatest claycourter of all time and overachieved on grass in an era of no serve and volleyers.

In the 90s he would probably win 3 Roland Garros and 4-5 Wimbledons if he switched place with Sampras.

Haelfix
06-11-2011, 12:08 AM
Which is definitely fair. You could say Pete Sampras was at least Rogers equal on grass, especially the fast stuff. But if Roger was the same age as Pete, its hard to see whom amongst the 90s clay courters would stop him from blitzing them on clay. Maybe Muster 1 year, and Kuerten at the end. Still thats basically 5 or 6 RG's where he'd be the overwhelming favorite. I'd guess he'd basically split Wimbledons with Pete (so lets say Roger wins 4 being super conservative)

Pete, Rafter and Agassi might take a few of his USO's, but then its hard to see who even has a chance to beat him on Rebound Ace other than Agassi. So lets again be conservative and remove 2 total hc slams from his resume.

The bottomline is that he still ends up with something like 16 slams, as he makes up the difference on clay.

abraxas21
06-11-2011, 12:19 AM
Very true, he was lucky in the middle part of the decade he got to play so many clowns like Roddick, old men, and kiddie versions of future great players.

:facepalm:

federer's prime happened in a mug era, yes, but that era was no more muggy than the current era. in fact, this current era is probly even slightly muggier.

hiperborejac
06-11-2011, 12:28 AM
tell u this

if djokovic 2011 played during 2005 onwards

nadal would have ZERO SLAMS

Yeah... That's because Serbia had tough Davis cup draws... Had they beat Russia back to 2008 after Novak's 1st slam and eventually won the whole thing Rafa would be 5 slams short... Also if my grandma had a penis she would be my grandpa ;)

sexybeast
06-11-2011, 12:33 AM
Which is definitely fair. You could say Pete Sampras was at least Rogers equal on grass, especially the fast stuff. But if Roger was the same age as Pete, its hard to see whom amongst the 90s clay courters would stop him from blitzing them on clay. Maybe Muster 1 year, and Kuerten at the end. Still thats basically 5 or 6 RG's where he'd be the overwhelming favorite. I'd guess he'd basically split Wimbledons with Pete (so lets say Roger wins 4 being super conservative)

Pete, Rafter and Agassi might take a few of his USO's, but then its hard to see who even has a chance to beat him on Rebound Ace other than Agassi. So lets again be conservative and remove 2 total hc slams from his resume.

The bottomline is that he still ends up with something like 16 slams, as he makes up the difference on clay.

I think Sampras was better on fast grasscourts than Federer, but I dont really have much to back it up with besides empirical evidence from watching both of them play, his game was simply more suited for grass. His serve and volley game simply put his opponent out of the picture for most of his serve games. Federer might be the 2nd best grasscourter of all time together with Laver, but that is two completely different eras which makes it almost impossible to compare.

Anyway, back to clay 3 RGs is really a conservative estimate. I think Kuerten would give him a hard time and maybe Bruguera would, but you hardly had to play them to win Roland Garros and Federer has now showed he has been great on clay for 10 years, since winning Hamburg 2002 he has been to atleast one big clay final (master series, RG) for 10 years in a row! His longevity combined with consistensy surpasses any claycourter I can remember.

You know, any player would rather play Courier, Muster and Bruguera all in a row in QF to F in Roland Garros rather than play 2 qualifiers and Nadal in the final. You could avoid all of them, but you cant really avoid Nadal in Roland Garros, he will be there in the final every year just waiting for you.

Just to take 3 years where I cant see how anyone would be able to stop Federer on clay, look at draws 96, 98, 99. Look at those SFs....

Federer wouldnt beat Kafelnikov, Stich, Moya, Agassi, Hrbaty, Medvedev, Meligeni, Pioline on clay?

Would he even lose a set against any of them? Maybe Agassi and Kafelnikov...

People list names like Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster and Courier (IMO overachiever) like if they would be there waiting for you in every final and semifinal. Muster would barely ever be there, he was quite horrible in Roland Garros. All of them could lose against almost anyone anytime, they had bad days like everyone else and also they really didnt have more than 4 good years on clay. In this era Nadal and Federer just wont ever have a bad day in any grand slam and they just wont stop dominating (they seem to just have invited Djokovic this year, but wont stop beating the rest) but this wasnt the case in the 90s except for Sampras on grasscourts. Federer's consistensy in slams over last 8 years is just sick and barely comparable to any other player in history.

Haelfix
06-11-2011, 01:19 AM
I do think Kuerten is a greater claycourter than Roger, and would beat him more times than nought, but he comes late in the 90s. I just don't see Courier beating Fed. You could make a case on occassion for Bruguera and Muster due to matchups, but they might take 1 slam each from him. The rest of the time, its hard to see many challengers.

He'd maul Kafelnikov, Hrbaty, Medvedev and Pioline on clay. I very much doubt he drops a single set either.

Its hard to see him not win more than 3 in that era

sexybeast
06-11-2011, 01:24 AM
I do think Kuerten is a greater claycourter than Roger, and would beat him more times than nought, but he comes late in the 90s. I just don't see Courier beating Fed. You could make a case on occassion for Bruguera and Muster due to matchups, but they might take 1 slam each from him. The rest of the time, its hard to see many challengers.

He'd maul Kafelnikov, Hrbaty, Medvedev and Pioline on clay. I very much doubt he drops a single set either.

Its hard to see him not win more than 3 in that era

He would definetly beat Muster on clay because Muster couldnt handle allcourters and serve and volleyers even on clay. Courier is vastly overrated and had a couple of good years in a weak era, Federer is just on a whole different level than Courier on clay. Bruguera could be a matchup issue for Federer, Kuerten even more so.

Matt01
06-11-2011, 02:57 AM
tell u this

if djokovic 2011 played during 2005 onwards

nadal would have ZERO SLAMS


My might have zero Slams on HC but on clay and grass? Certainly not...

Matt01
06-11-2011, 02:59 AM
:facepalm:

federer's prime happened in a mug era, yes, but that era was no more muggy than the current era. in fact, this current era is probly even slightly muggier.


With Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro the current era is anything but a mug era...

abraxas21
06-11-2011, 03:15 AM
With Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro the current era is anything but a mug era...

well, if a washed up way-past-his-prime version of federer can routine the best possible version of your hero in the biggest clay tournament of the world, then i guess djokovic can only be lucky not to have peaked when federer was at the top of his game. fact of the matter is that if djokovic were 5 years older, he'd have probly been another roddick, a career which could have been extremely brilliant but that was alas severely frustrated by the best player in the game at the moment. ponder on that for a moment and then thank your lucky stars that djokovic has the age he currently has.

Matt01
06-11-2011, 03:21 AM
well, if a washed up way-past-his-prime version of federer can routine the best possible version of your hero in the biggest clay tournament of the world, then i guess djokovic can only be lucky not to have peaked when federer was at the top of his game. fact of the matter is that if djokovic were 5 years older, he'd have probly been another roddick, a career which could have been extremely brilliant but that was alas severely frustrated by the best player in the game at the moment. ponder on that for a moment and then thank your lucky stars that djokovic has the age he currently has.


You're serious, aren't you? :scared:

abraxas21
06-11-2011, 03:31 AM
You're serious, aren't you? :scared:

it's an exaggeration to compare him to roddick but the point stands.

djokovic wouldn't have had much of a chance against prime-federer in GS, yes. his game style plays right into federer's racket and he doesn't have the weapons to defeat a guy like federer when federer plays like, say, 2005-level federer.

i have to be honest: thru the past few months i have come to respect djokovic more than i used to (something which wasnt hard as there's only something to be gained when there wasn't anything at all to begin with) but his playing style is still highly generic. he's fast, he's got a solid forehand and backhand, a decent drop-shot, etc. etc. but theres nothing truly special in his whole arsenal. he's not a safin who can hit missiles all day long on a good day, for example.

Speed of Light
06-11-2011, 03:33 AM
well, if a washed up way-past-his-prime version of federer can routine the best possible version of your hero in the biggest clay tournament of the world, then i guess djokovic can only be lucky not to have peaked when federer was at the top of his game. fact of the matter is that if djokovic were 5 years older, he'd have probly been another roddick, a career which could have been extremely brilliant but that was alas severely frustrated by the best player in the game at the moment. ponder on that for a moment and then thank your lucky stars that djokovic has the age he currently has.

Yes Federer may not be in his prime any more, but people tend to severely exaggerate that fact into saying that he should be holding a walking stick instead of a tennis racket in his hand. Federer himself admitted he was in the best shape physically of his career. And if anything, even if his game has diminished from his previously untouchable heights on hardcourts and grass, he has gained one thing in his arsenal which is nothing less than a weapon : experience. Especially on a claycourt this has helped him over the past three years or so in Roland Gaross.. where he has improved (W, loss against unplayable Soderling in overcast conditions, the best performance against Rafa in the final). So to just say what you have said outright (in bolded letters) is prevarication. If anything, Nole lost against one of the toughest opponents possible on a clay court.

sco
06-11-2011, 03:36 AM
IMO, if Nadal's, Nole's, and Murray's peak coincided with Fed's (2003-07), Federer would probably have more GS titles and a better head-to-head vs Nadal. The grass was faster back then (but still getting slower according to Murray and Karlovic). Their prime years (especially Nadal's) would not last as long as Fed's (seeing how his body has held up so well because of his style of play).

Federer's done his job reaching 5 FO finals, 1 FO semi and 1 FO quarters, winning once and losing only to Soderling and Nadal in 8 years. There's no shame in losing to Nadal (who will be the greatest clay courter ever) on clay. Nadal has not been consistent enough on fast hard court to reach US Open finals except for last year. He has been fodder for every hard-hitting giant out there on fast hard court. I think he'd be less his US Open title, his Wimbledon titles and probably his AO title.

abraxas21
06-11-2011, 03:39 AM
Yes Federer may not be in his prime any more, but people tend to severely exaggerate that fact into saying that he should be holding a walking stick instead of a tennis racket in his hand. Federer himself admitted he was in the best shape physically of his career. And if anything, even if his game has diminished from his previously untouchable heights on hardcourts and grass, he has gained one thing in his arsenal which is nothing less than a weapon : experience. Especially on a claycourt this has helped him over the past three years or so in Roland Gaross.. where he has improved (W, loss against unplayable Soderling in overcast conditions, the best performance against Rafa in the final). So to just say what you have said outright (in bolded letters) is prevarication. If anything, Nole lost against one of the toughest opponents possible on a clay court.

according to olderer, he's playing better than in 2005. it's not for nothing that some call him deluderer.

as for the bolded part, it's precisely that. an old version of federer is still the third best player in the world and capable of threatening anyone. now imagine if federer was at his prime and the only possible coincebable scenario is that he'd be world number 1, just like he used to be when he was actually in his prime.

Roddickominator
06-11-2011, 03:46 AM
This whole idea that the young guns are better competition for Federer is misguided at best. Federer himself is THE reason that the young guys like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray had to step it up and evolve the game to the next level like they have. They couldn't match up to a guy like Federer in terms of skill, but they improved their fitness and consistency to a level that could finally rival Federer and beat him on occasion(or most of the time if you're Nadal, but that's a separate matchup issue). Current surface conditions and racket technology allowed this to happen in the way that it has, and it shouldn't be a slight towards Federer.

sco
06-11-2011, 03:53 AM
Yes Federer may not be in his prime any more, but people tend to severely exaggerate that fact into saying that he should be holding a walking stick instead of a tennis racket in his hand. Federer himself admitted he was in the best shape physically of his career. And if anything, even if his game has diminished from his previously untouchable heights on hardcourts and grass, he has gained one thing in his arsenal which is nothing less than a weapon : experience. Especially on a claycourt this has helped him over the past three years or so in Roland Gaross.. where he has improved (W, loss against unplayable Soderling in overcast conditions, the best performance against Rafa in the final). So to just say what you have said outright (in bolded letters) is prevarication. If anything, Nole lost against one of the toughest opponents possible on a clay court.

It's not the physical shape he's in (stamina) but his movement that's diminished. I remember Navratilova once commenting that as you age it's not that you can't hit the same strokes but that you can't get there in time to do so. The body is just slower. I wouldn't trade Federer's movement in his prime for experience. He had plenty of experience in his prime and more importantly, he had confidence that if he played his best or near his best no one could beat him (sans Nadal especially on clay). IMO, in Fed's case, confidence is very important as evidenced by how free-flowing his game is and how aggressive he is when he's ahead and his movement is very tied to that confidence.

Matt01
06-11-2011, 04:01 AM
It's not the physical shape he's in (stamina) but his movement that's diminished. I remember Navratilova once commenting that as you age it's not that you can't hit the same strokes but that you can't get there in time to do so. The body is just slower. I wouldn't trade Federer's movement in his prime for experience. He had plenty of experience in his prime and more importantly, he had confidence that if he played his best or near his best no one could beat him (sans Nadal especially on clay). IMO, in Fed's case, confidence is very important as evidenced by how free-flowing his game is and how aggressive he is when he's ahead and his movement is very tied to that confidence.


His movement against Djokivic at RG looked very good to me. He defended very well I found...

sexybeast
06-11-2011, 01:06 PM
Federer's movement to cover his forehand in the deuce court is slower no matter how you look at it, he can no longer dance around his backhand to hit forehands but needs to stick with his backhand, when he tries to run around to hit his forehand he more often get mishits because of his slower feet.

Now, he is a fast dude for 30 years old but not anywhere close to his prime.

tennis2tennis
06-11-2011, 01:39 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.


WTF...?? Nadal became a force when he won his first major in 2005...only 4 of roger's 16 majors came pre-2005 so 75% of rogers wins came during the Rafa era...NEXT..

Commander Data
06-11-2011, 01:52 PM
His movement against Djokivic at RG looked very good to me. He defended very well I found...

I thought so too but that does not mean his footwork did not decline. I think it is normal for athletes that their speed is better at 25 then at 30.

Singularity
06-11-2011, 03:11 PM
His movement against Djokivic at RG looked very good to me. He defended very well I found...
I don't think you can judge this by looking at a single match in isolation. Federer's defense in the last two RG matches he played is arguably better than it's been all year. He can still 'turn it on' at times, but he's lost his consistency, which is where 'Federror' comes in.

paseo
06-11-2011, 03:22 PM
He underachieve, actually. He should have already won at least 20 slams and 20 MS shields by now.

heartbroken
06-12-2011, 03:40 PM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.

I'll start by saying that Federer entered my top tier of all-time greats when he was still at 13 slams. I took into account his deep runs at the French that were only derailed by Nadal. If Fed had never won even a 14th slam, he would have stayed in my top group no matter what else had happened. In the interest of full disclosure, that group also includes Laver, Borg, and Sampras. It will also include Nadal if he gets one more slam win. All just my opinion, of course, but at least you know where I'm coming from... :)

Your question is a fair one, and certainly worth asking, but I think the honest answer is "who knows"? We all know that competition matters, but it's always a two way street. I think there is some truth in saying that Fed looked more unstoppable than he really was at times because of a lack of competition. I think it is also true that Fed often made that competition look bad, just by being so dominant. The truth can sometimes lie somewhere in the middle.

If we could somehow pit Fed, Sampras, and Nadal against each other, each in their "prime" primes, if you will, I think they would all "steal" slams from each other. We can probably guess that Nadal would own the clay no matter what, but what would the slam count look like in such a scenario? I have no clue! However, if such a scenario could magically be played out, I suspect that the career numbers would look pretty even for those three players.

May I ask why you are no longer a Fed fan, assuming I read correctly that you are a former fan? Regardless of the level of competition, he has certainly put on some brilliant displays of tennis over the years.

More disclosure: I was a huge Sampras fan during his playing days. When his career was over, and many were quick to name him the GOAT, I didn't agree. Sure, I would have loved for Sampras to be the GOAT, but in my mind, he didn't do enough to be clearly above Laver and Borg, when all factors were considered. Plus, I never expected Sampras to be unbeatable. He was a brilliant tennis player, but every human has flaws, on the court and off...

Anyway, if someone is a Fed fan, I personally see no reason why they shouldn't continue to be a Fed fan, and continue to celebrate a great career. That career may not be perfect, but nothing ever is... :)

superslam77
06-12-2011, 04:07 PM
Interesting how one player can destroy a legacy. Had Nadal come on the scene earlier there is no doubt that Federer would have fewer slams. Borg ran away when he started losing to Johnny Mac in order to protect his legacy. Federer is stubborn however and will keep getting destroyed by Nadal. Nadal will surpass him as GOAT without a doubt. For all the talent Federer has been found wanting when push comes to shove. Great champions have never wilted as much as Federer does against Nadal. The 2008 French open Final was humiliating. Hewitt got bageled in a US open final but he gave it his all in that match even though he is not the most talented of players. You don't get that with Federer. Since the beginning the Swiss has struggled against Nadal. In his prime Federer either lost or was pushed to the limit by Nadal. Federer is lucky that Nadal is five years younger otherwise he would have 7 majors maximum.

hmmm do really think a 25-30 y/o Nadal would be harder than a 17-24 y/o? just think...if Nadal/Nole were Fed's age they would prolly had declined already and Fed picked more RG's so it doesn't really make sense what you say.

Jaz
06-12-2011, 04:55 PM
No he underachieved. It's not often you come across the the Clay GOAT. Not only that, he is everything Federer struggles to deal with, and still does.

Federer should have won even more.

thrust
06-13-2011, 02:05 AM
So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.

Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?

Before you attack, consider that I used to be a huge Federer fan before today. But his record against roddick vs. a guy like Nadal tells a lot of stories. Considering that Roddick was in some of those finals.

Discuss.

If there were no Nadal, Roger probably would have 18-20 Slams. Rafa, till now, was Roger's only real top competition.

yesh222
06-13-2011, 02:07 AM
The talking heads keep saying that Fed has lost maybe half a step from 2005.